BSA1 said:
This has been a inforamtive thread but after reading The Circuit Court decision in Huet IMHO but it does not address the issue of a spouse or other family member that legally owns a gun and keeps it in the same home a relative that is felon resides in is a crime.
I noted previously that Huet's husband was arrested of other firearms related crimes....
Apparently you didn't read the opinion in the case carefully enough to catch that Huet's cohabitant wasn't her husband. He was her boyfriend (
United States v. Huet, 665 F.3d 588 (3rd Cir., 2012), at pg 592, emphasis added):
...a federal grand jury sitting in the Western District of Pennsylvania returned a three-count indictment against Huet and her paramour, Marvin Hall (“Hall”). ...Count Three (“Count Three” or “the Indictment”) charged Huet with knowingly aiding and abetting the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)...
You seem to have notable difficulty understanding
Huet.
BSA1 said:
...The Court states in it's decison "During their probe, FBI agents met Hall and Huet, who lived together. Over the next nine months, agents gathered evidence allegedly connecting Hall and Huet to various criminal activities. " If he was committing his activity in the home they shared in common (i.e. basement or garage) then a argument could be made that is wife knew of his activities. In this type of situation she was already aiding and abetting him. The Court certainly believed that Huet was involved in criminal activity iwth her husband....
What a load of hogwash!
[1] Huet was not Hall's wife.
[2] The other criminal activity was irrelevant to the indictment at issue in the case. That might help explain why the FBI was investigating Huet and Hall and ultimately uncovered the evidence used to indict both Huet and Hall, but Huet was indicted simply for aiding and abetting a felon's possession of a gun.
[3] And of course Huet knew of Hall's past criminal activities. So what? In the OP's question, the OP's mother knows his father is a convicted felon.
BSA1 said:
...So far nothing has come to light where a felon or family member has been convicted for the mere presence of a legally owned firearm....
Huet's indictment was based on a search of the home she shared with Hall. As noted in
Huet, at pp 592-593):
...on June 6, 2008, a valid search warrant (the “search warrant”) was executed on the couple's Clarion County home. Agents...seized an SKS, Interordinance M59/66 rifle (“SKS rifle”) from an upstairs bedroom...
the court further noted, at 593:
...Although Huet is legally permitted to possess a firearm, Hall was convicted in 1999 of possessing an unregistered firearm, ... and is therefore prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. ... Huet allegedly told investigators that the guns in the house belonged to her and that it was not illegal for her to purchase weapons. Despite Huet's assertions that she alone possessed the SKS rifle, the Government sought and obtained an indictment charging Hall with illegal possession of the weapon, and Huet with aiding and abetting Hall's possession...
So it appears that the foundation of the indictment of Huet was her keeping her lawfully owned gun in a manner that allowed Hall, a prohibited person, access to it.
Jim K said:
AFAIK, there is currently no way gun rights can be restored for a felon. The GCA 68 provides for such restoral by the (then) Secretary of the Treasury, now the Attorney General, but for many years the anti gunners have succeeded in having that section of the law defunded so it is now a dead letter....
I agree that things are pretty bleak if one's disability is as a result of a conviction of a federal felony. Things aren't quite so bad if one's disability is based on conviction of a state felony.
The exact disabling condition is (18 USC 922(g)(1)):
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;...
...
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
The ATF regulation define "Crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year." as follows (27 CFR 478.11, emphasis added):
Crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year. Any Federal, State or foreign offense for which the maximum penalty, whether or not imposed, is capital punishment or imprisonment in excess of 1 year. The term shall not include (a) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices or (b) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of 2 years or less. What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for the purposes of the Act or this part, unless such pardon, expunction, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms, or unless the person is prohibited by the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held from receiving or possessing any firearms.
So if someone has a disabling state conviction but gets it set aside under state law, he will no longer be a prohibited person under GCA68.
